Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Article 2(a)(i) of the Convention. Safety standards. Medical examination. The Committee has been commenting for over ten years on the need to amend existing legislation which continues to require medical examinations only every five years. In its latest report, the Government reiterates its view that law and practice constitute substantial equivalence with the general goal of the Convention and indicates that the Coast Guard continues to examine the requirements for medical and physical examinations with the intent to update them as necessary. The Committee feels obliged to draw once more the Government’s attention to paragraph 118 of the 1990 General Survey on Convention No. 147, in which the Committee concluded that conducting medical examinations once every five years may under no construction be deemed substantially equivalent to the requirement for compulsory medical examination for seafarers once every two years as required by the Medical Examination (Seafarers) Convention, 1946 (No. 73). In addition, the Committee recalls that the same two-year maximum period of validity of the seafarer’s medical certificate has been incorporated in Standard A1.2(7)(a) of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006). The Committee therefore once again asks the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that national laws or regulations require medical examinations for seafarers to be carried out at shorter intervals so as to ensure substantial equivalence with the requirements of Article 5(1) of Convention No. 73.

Article 2(a)(iii). Shipboard conditions of employment. Articles of agreement. The Committee recalls its previous comment in which it noted that in its current reading, Title 46 of the United States Code fails to ensure substantial equivalence with several requirements of the Seamen’s Articles of Agreement Convention, 1926 (No. 22), namely, the obligation to make adequate provision to ensure that the seafarer has understood the agreement; the inclusion in all cases of certain mandatory agreement details, including the conditions for termination and immediate discharge and seafarer’s entitlement to annual leave with pay; and, the seafarer’s right to request and receive a separate certificate as to the quality of the seafarer’s work. In its reply, the Government states that, based on the tripartite review of US laws and regulations prior to the ratification of the Convention, it is satisfied that these laws adequately address the objects and purposes of all the international labour Conventions listed in the appendix of Convention No. 147. Under the circumstances, the Committee is obliged to once again refer to paragraph 186 of its General Survey on Convention No. 147, in which it considered that the essential features of Convention No. 22 on which substantial equivalence would have to be established, including the provision of a document containing all of the main particulars listed in Article 6(3) and adequate protection on termination as provided for in Articles 10–14. Moreover, the Committee recalls that most of the provisions of Convention No. 22 on which the Committee has been commenting have been incorporated in Standards A2.1(1), (4) and (5) of the MLC, 2006. The Committee therefore once again asks the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that national laws or regulations prescribe conditions for signing seafarers’ articles of agreement that are substantially equivalent to the requirements of Articles 3(4), 6(3) and 14(2) of Convention No. 22.

Article 2(d). Adequate procedures for the engagement of seafarers and the investigation of complaints. The Committee recalls the Government’s earlier statement that, with respect to the engagement of seafarers, the Coast Guard has ceased to perform the duties of the Shipping Commissioner and that these duties are now performed by ships’ masters. In its latest report, however, the Government indicates that the Coast Guard has the statutory enforcement authority for the laws and regulations regarding the engagement of seafarers on US registered vessels and the investigation of complaints and that it issues procedures to this effect. The Committee requests the Government to provide additional clarifications in this respect, and to transmit copies of any relevant procedures that the Coast Guard may have issued in these matters.

Articles 2(f) and 4, and Part IV of the report form. Ship inspections. Practical application. The Committee notes the statistical information provided by the Government concerning the number of ship inspections carried out in the period 2005–10. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide detailed information regarding the practical application of the Convention, including, for instance, the number of seafarers covered by the relevant legislation, statistics on flag State and port State inspections, the number and nature of any complaints considered and the action taken, as well as copies of any standardized inspection checklist or inspection report form, relevant extracts from official publications, such as US Coast Guard activity reports, notices, circulars or procedures.

Finally, the Committee takes this opportunity to recall that Convention No. 147, as well as 67 other international maritime labour instruments, is revised by the MLC, 2006. It also recalls that the notion of substantial equivalence has been incorporated and further defined in Article VI(3) and (4) of the MLC, 2006, and therefore ensuring compliance with Convention No. 147 would facilitate the implementation of the provisions of the MLC, 2006. Noting that the United States has initiated the review and consultation process with a view to the future ratification of the MLC, 2006, the Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any further developments with respect to the possible ratification of the MLC, 2006.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes the Government’s information provided in response to its previous comments concerning Article 2, subparagraphs (a) (Conventions Nos. 87 and 92; Convention No. 134, Articles 4 and 7), (b) and (d)(ii); and Article 4 of the Convention. It requests the Government to supply further information on the following points.

Article 2, subparagraph (a)

Safety standards – Conventions listed in the Appendix to Convention No. 147, but not ratified by the United States.

Convention No. 73. Medical examination. The Government states that, while current laws and regulations require examinations and evaluations by the Coast Guard every five years, the unions in the US maritime industry, which is almost completely unionized, require medical exams at a greater frequency than Convention No. 73. Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147, however, requires ratifying States to have laws or regulations laying down safety standards in relation to medical examination that are substantially equivalent to Convention No. 73 (see also paragraph 112 of the Committee’s General Survey “Labour Standards on Merchant Ships”, 1990). The requirement of substantial equivalence in Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147 may be met in respect of Convention No. 73 where there are laws or regulations providing for compulsory regular medical examinations for seafarers, preferably every two years, but certainly more frequently than every five years (see also ibid., paragraph 118). The two-year maximum validity of a medical certificate has also been laid down in Standard A1.2, paragraph 7, of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006. Noting that the Coast Guard is examining the requirements for medical and physical examinations with the possibility that they may be updated, the Committee again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that national laws or regulations require medical examinations for seafarers to be carried out at shorter intervals, so as to ensure the substantial equivalence of US legislation to Convention No. 73 (Article 5, paragraph 1).

Other matters – Convention listed in the Appendix to Convention No. 147, but not ratified by the United States.

Convention No. 22. Articles of agreement.

Article 3, paragraph 4. Understanding of agreements. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that seafarers understand the clauses of the agreement. The Committee notes with interest that, according to the Government’s report, the master, on executing the agreement, is required to ensure that each seafarer signing “personally appeared before me … acknowledged to me that he had read or had heard read the same [agreement]; that he was by me made acquainted with the conditions thereof, and understood the same; and that, while sober, and not in a state of intoxication, he signed it freely and voluntarily …”. Since section 10305 of Title 46 of the United States Code only provides that the agreement shall be signed in the presence of the master or individual in charge, the Committee would appreciate an indication of the source of the provision cited in the report.

Article 6, paragraph 3(10)(c) and (11). Particulars of agreements. The Government indicates that, although articles of agreement prescribed by US law do not include grounds for rescission or specific provisions for annual leave, they include a clause providing that, if a seafarer considers to be aggrieved by any breach of agreement, the seafarer shall present the complaint to the master; in addition, mariners have meaningful access to courts to assert and enforce their rights afforded by statute, general maritime law and collective agreements.

To be in a position to file complaints or access courts for breach of agreement, a seafarer first needs to know precisely what his rights and obligations are. If they are not laid down in his agreement (or referred to in the agreement), he will not necessarily be aware of them and therefore, not in a position to enforce them through complaints and court procedures. These procedures, therefore, can only be the second step after cognizance of the respective rights and obligations. Thus, the essential features of Convention No. 22, on which substantial equivalence has to be established, must include the provision of a document containing all the main particulars listed in Article 6(3) (see also paragraph 118 of the Committee’s 1990 General Survey on labour standards on merchant ships). The Committee asks the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that articles of agreement contain the following particulars: (i) if the agreement has been made for an indefinite period, the conditions which shall entitle either party to rescind it, as well as the required period of notice for rescission; and (ii) the annual leave with pay granted to the seafarer after one year’s service with the same shipping company, if such leave is provided for by national law.

Articles 9 to 13. Termination and immediate discharge. The Government states that, while US law does not include specific provisions concerning termination or immediate discharge, articles of agreement require the inclusion of regulations about conduct on-board and information on fines and other punishment for misconduct, and contain a clause providing that, if a seafarer considers to be aggrieved by any breach of agreement, the seafarer shall present the complaint to the master; moreover, national legislation addresses discharges in that the master is required to provide a seafarer with a signed certificate of discharge and a full account of his wages before paying off and discharging the seafarer.

The adequate protection of the seafarer on termination (Articles 10 to 14) is, however, an essential feature of Convention No. 22 on which substantial equivalence has to be established (see also paragraph 118 of the Committee’s 1990 General Survey on labour standards on merchant ships). The relevant Articles of Convention No. 22 require that national legislation articulate in advance and in an abstract manner the conditions for termination or immediate discharge. The provisions of the national law concerning the certificate of discharge, and the inclusion in the agreement of regulations about conduct on board or a clause on complaints for breach of agreement, do not suffice to ensure substantial equivalence of national legislation with Articles 9 to 13 of Convention No. 22. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that national laws or regulations determine the circumstances of termination of agreements (Articles 9 and 10) and immediate discharge (Articles 11, 12 and 13).

Article 14, paragraph 2. Separate certificate as to the quality of the seafarer’s work. In reply to the Committee’s previous request, the Government points out that the certificates of discharge may not contain a reference about the character or ability of the seafarer. This is in line with Article 5, paragraph 2, of Convention No. 22. The report further indicates that masters of vessels keeping an official logbook are required to log a statement of the conduct, character and qualification of each seafarer of the vessel or a statement that they decline to give an opinion; the official logbook is submitted to and retained by the appropriate US Coast Guard officer in charge, Marine Inspection.

The purpose of Article 14, paragraph 2, of Convention No. 22, however, is to facilitate acquisition of further work or promotion and, therefore, it is imperative that the seafarer be able to obtain from the master a written attestation as to the quality of his work. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the seafarer has at all times the right to obtain from the master a separate certificate as to the quality of his work or, failing that, a certificate indicating whether he has fully discharged his obligations under the agreement.

Article 2, subparagraph (d)(i). Engagement of seafarers on ships registered in the territory of the Member. The Government indicates in its report that the Coast Guard has the statutory enforcement authority over the engagement of seafarers on US vessels, that it is the competent authority for handling engagement complaints and initiating investigations, and that such investigations follow Coast Guard-issued procedures.

Further to complaints procedures, however, each ratifying Member undertakes, in accordance with Article 2, subparagraph (d)(i), to ensure that adequate procedures exist for the engagement of seafarers on ships registered in its territory, and that these engagement procedures are subject to the overall supervision of the competent authority. The Coast Guard, while being designated by the Government as the statutory enforcement authority over the engagement of seafarers on US vessels, has ceased performing the duties of the Shipping Commissioner. The Committee therefore requests the Government to describe how the competent authority discharges the supervisory functions attributed to it by the Convention with regard to engagement.

Article 2, subparagraph (f). Flag State inspections. The Committee notes the statistical information provided by the Government in its report. It asks the Government to continue to provide information in future reports on the results of inspections of labour standards on-board ship, the number and results of investigations of complaints, and the penalties imposed.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Article 2(a) of the Convention (Conventions referred
to in the Appendix to Convention No. 147, but not
ratified by the United States)

-  Prevention of Accidents (Seafarers) Convention, 1970 (No. 134). The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to the issues raised in its previous direct request. It notes that, with regard to the management of accident risks, the Government has adhered to the ISM Code, which is implemented by Title 46 of the United States Code and Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The national legislation therefore provides for the designation of a person ashore with direct access to management to whom accidents and hazardous situations are to be reported, as well as requiring internal and external audits. The Government is requested to indicate whether the safety management system which has to be implemented by companies provides for the appointment, from amongst the crew of the ship, of a suitable person or suitable persons or of a suitable committee responsible, under the master, for accident prevention. If this is not the case, please indicate the measures which have been taken or are envisaged in order to bring the national legislation into substantial equivalence with this provision of the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to describe the manner in which internal and external audits are organized and ensured.

-  Medical Examination (Seafarers) Convention, 1946 (No. 73). Article 5, paragraph 1. The Government indicates in its report that, if it is determined that more frequent physical examinations are necessary to evaluate seafarers’ health, a proposal will be submitted to amend the regulations governing the issuance of medical certificates. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken and, where appropriate, the consultations held since its last report with a view to amending the legislation on this point, with a view to reducing the existing disparities which are deemed by the Committee to be too great to be considered as substantial equivalence for the purposes of Convention No. 147. The Committee hopes that the Government will be in a position to submit this matter for further examination and to indicate the progress achieved in its next report in bringing its legislation into substantial equivalence with the provisions of the Convention.

-  Accommodation of Crews Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 92). The Committee notes the fact that national laws and regulations are brought to the notice of the persons concerned (Article 3, paragraph 2(a)) by means of the obligation for them to be appended to the articles of agreement. The Government is requested to indicate whether the national laws or regulations on crew accommodation are included in the list of laws and regulations which must be appended to the articles of agreement in accordance with section 10302(b)(5) of Title 46 of the United States Code.

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the effect that the enforcement of crew accommodation requirements is ensured by periodic inspections of vessels by the Coast Guard from the time of construction, during which the Coast Guard ensures that minimum crew accommodation requirements are met, as well as through periodic inspections when vessels are in use. It requests the Government to provide further information on the application in practice of the obligations relating to crew accommodation, including a description of the procedures for the investigation of complaints.

The Committee notes that, under the terms of Chapter 111, section 11101, of Title 46 of the United States Code, fines of between US$50 and $500 are envisaged for any owner, charterer, operator, agent or master not complying with the requirements respecting the accommodation of crews. With reference to Article 3, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention, the Committee recalls that the penalties prescribed for any violation of the provisions respecting the accommodation of crews must be adequate and it requests the Government to keep it informed of any measures that it intends to take, in consultation with the organizations of shipowners and seafarers, to achieve greater conformity and therefore substantial equivalence between the national legislation and Convention No. 92, in accordance with the requirements of Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147.

-  Seamen’s Articles of Agreement Convention, 1926 (No. 22). In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government, among other matters, to indicate the measures taken to ensure that seafarers understand the clauses of their agreement, in accordance with Article 3, paragraph 4, of the Convention. The Government states in its report that the fact of signing the agreement indicates an understanding of it. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether measures other than the written form of the agreement are taken to ensure that seafarers understand the meaning of the clauses of the agreement, such as the provision of legal assistance or the establishment of a period of reflection for the acceptance of the agreement.

In its previous direct request, the Committee noted the Government’s intention to supply as soon as possible information on the points raised under this Convention. However, it notes that the Government’s report does not provide all the information requested and is therefore bound to reiterate the questions raised, which read as follows: please indicate (i) whether agreements have to include reference to the possible grounds for rescission and annual leave (Article 6, paragraph 3(10)(c) and (11)); (ii) the provisions relating to termination (Articles 9 and 10) and immediate discharge (Articles 12 and 13).

Article 14. The Committee notes that seafarers are issued with a certificate of discharge, under the terms of section 10311 of Title 46 of the United States Code, and as required by Article 14, paragraph 1, of the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether the seafarer at all times has the right to obtain from the master a separate certificate as to the quality of his work or, failing that, a certificate indicating whether he has fully discharged his obligations under the agreement (Article 14, paragraph 2).

-  Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). The Committee notes the judicial decisions provided by the Government and requests it to continue providing the Office with any relevant judicial decisions relating to the field covered by these Conventions.

Article 3 of Convention No. 87. While noting the indications contained in the Government’s report that, firstly, all private sector workers enjoy the full range of trade union rights and, secondly, the maritime industry in the United States is almost completely unionized, the Committee nevertheless notes that the report does not indicate the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to render the Labour Management Report and Disclosure Act of 1959 (section 504) substantially equivalent to Convention No. 87. In these circumstances, it is bound to reiterate its previous comments, in which it noted that this provision excludes any person who is or has been a member of the Communist Party from holding office in a labour organization and from serving as a consultant or adviser. It once again refers the Government to the interpretation contained in its General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining (paragraph 119), where it considered that "legislation which prohibits the exercise of trade union functions solely on the grounds of political belief or affiliation is not compatible with the right of organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom". It once again recalls that, for the purposes of Convention No. 147, substantial equivalence with Convention No. 87 involves at the minimum the observance and implementation in full of the right (among other guarantees) to elect representatives in full freedom, in respect of seafarers on United States registered ships (see the 1990 General Survey, paragraph 188). The Committee therefore firmly hopes that the next report will contain information on the measures which have been taken or are envisaged in this respect.

Article 2(b). The Committee notes the establishment within the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety. The Government is requested to provide information on the role of the above Committee as it relates to this provision of the Convention.

Article 2(d)(i) and (ii). The Committee notes that the Coast Guard has ceased performing the duties of the Shipping Commissioner, and that these duties are now performed by the master of the vessel, using guidance provided by the Coast Guard. However, the Committee notes the absence of the general supervisory system that the Government had undertaken to establish under this Article of the Convention. It therefore once again refers the Government to the explanations contained in Chapter IV of the General Survey (especially paragraphs 214 and 218) and considers that the supervisory role in engagement procedures and the investigation of complaints relating to engagement as required by the Convention must be discharged by a disinterested party in the context of adequate procedures established after consultation with the organizations of shipowners and seafarers, where appropriate. The Committee recalls that, by ratifying the Convention, each Member undertakes to ensure that such procedures exist and are subject to the overall supervision of the competent authority.

The Committee also notes that the parties may, if disputes are not settled amicably in accordance with collective agreements, refer them to the courts for resolution. It further notes the possibility of filing complaints with the Coast Guard, in which case the latter is competent to investigate to determine whether any violations of laws or regulations have occurred. The Government is requested to provide detailed information on the engagement procedures for seafarers on vessels registered on its territory and for the investigation of complaints lodged in this respect, and particularly to indicate: (i) the competence of the Coast Guard with regard to the engagement of seafarers and the filing of complaints; (ii) the competent authority entrusted with the overall supervision of procedures for the engagement of seafarers on vessels registered on its territory and the investigation of complaints arising in this connection; and (iii) whether tripartite consultations were held concerning the elaboration of procedures for the engagement of seafarers and the investigation of complaints arising in this connection.

The Government is also requested to indicate whether the rules respecting the investigation of complaints arising in connection with engagement are also applicable to complaints lodged by seafarers of its own nationality engaged on vessels registered in a foreign country and mooring in American ports, and whether the same procedures are applicable to seafarers of foreign nationality engaged on vessels registered in a foreign country (Article 2(d)(ii)). In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted to ensure the prompt transmission of complaints arising in connection with the engagement of foreign seafarers on ships registered in a foreign country to the competent authority of the country, in accordance with this provision of the Convention.

Article 2(f). The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report concerning the frequency of inspections of vessels registered in the United States and carried out by the Coast Guard. It would be grateful if the Government would provide information in future reports, as it did in the report received in 1994, on the size of the inspection staff, the number and results of inspections and investigations of complaints, and the penalties imposed.

Article 4. The Committee notes the updating of Commandant Instruction No. 16711.12A on 12 July 1996 with the objective of providing clear guidance for the application of Convention No. 147. It notes with interest that, where the vessel that is inspected is registered in a State that has ratified the Convention, the nearest maritime, consular or diplomatic representative of the vessel’s flag State shall be notified of the intervention when the competent authorities intervene in situations which are clearly hazardous to safety and health under the terms of section 1223(b) of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act. In the case of vessels registered in a State that has not ratified Convention No. 147, the Committee notes that the captain of the port may take control action to rectify any conditions which are clearly hazardous to safety and health and which can reasonably be construed as imperilling the safety of the port. The Committee notes that, where such measures are taken, the Instruction does not provide, as required by the Convention (Article 4, paragraph 2), that the nearest maritime, consular or diplomatic representative of the flag State shall be notified forthwith. It requests the Government to indicate the measures that it intends to take in order to conform fully to the Convention on this point.

Part V of the report form. The Government is requested to indicate the representative organizations of employers and workers to which copies of the last report were communicated in accordance with article 23, paragraph 2, of the Constitution of the ILO.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report and requests it to furnish additional particulars on the following points.

Article 2(a) of the Convention (Conventions referred
to in the Appendix to Convention No. 147, but not
ratified by the United States)

-  Prevention of Accidents (Seafarers) Convention, 1970 (No. 134). The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to the issues raised in its previous direct request. It notes that, with regard to the management of accident risks, the Government has adhered to the ISM Code, which is implemented by Title 46 of the United States Code and Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The national legislation therefore provides for the designation of a person ashore with direct access to management to whom accidents and hazardous situations are to be reported, as well as requiring internal and external audits. The Government is requested to indicate whether the safety management system which has to be implemented by companies provides for the appointment, from amongst the crew of the ship, of a suitable person or suitable persons or of a suitable committee responsible, under the master, for accident prevention. If this is not the case, please indicate the measures which have been taken or are envisaged in order to bring the national legislation into substantial equivalence with this provision of the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to describe the manner in which internal and external audits are organized and ensured.

-  Medical Examination (Seafarers) Convention, 1946 (No. 73). Article 5, paragraph 1. The Government indicates in its report that, if it is determined that more frequent physical examinations are necessary to evaluate seafarers’ health, a proposal will be submitted to amend the regulations governing the issuance of medical certificates. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken and, where appropriate, the consultations held since its last report with a view to amending the legislation on this point, with a view to reducing the existing disparities which are deemed by the Committee to be too great to be considered as substantial equivalence for the purposes of Convention No. 147. The Committee hopes that the Government will be in a position to submit this matter for further examination and to indicate the progress achieved in its next report in bringing its legislation into substantial equivalence with the provisions of the Convention.

-  Accommodation of Crews Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 92). The Committee notes the fact that national laws and regulations are brought to the notice of the persons concerned (Article 3, paragraph 2(a)) by means of the obligation for them to be appended to the articles of agreement. The Government is requested to indicate whether the national laws or regulations on crew accommodation are included in the list of laws and regulations which must be appended to the articles of agreement in accordance with section 10302(b)(5) of Title 46 of the United States Code.

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the effect that the enforcement of crew accommodation requirements is ensured by periodic inspections of vessels by the Coast Guard from the time of construction, during which the Coast Guard ensures that minimum crew accommodation requirements are met, as well as through periodic inspections when vessels are in use. It requests the Government to provide further information on the application in practice of the obligations relating to crew accommodation, including a description of the procedures for the investigation of complaints.

The Committee notes that, under the terms of Chapter 111, section 11101, of Title 46 of the United States Code, fines of between US$50 and $500 are envisaged for any owner, charterer, operator, agent or master not complying with the requirements respecting the accommodation of crews. With reference to Article 3, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention, the Committee recalls that the penalties prescribed for any violation of the provisions respecting the accommodation of crews must be adequate and it requests the Government to keep it informed of any measures that it intends to take, in consultation with the organizations of shipowners and seafarers, to achieve greater conformity and therefore substantial equivalence between the national legislation and Convention No. 92, in accordance with the requirements of Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147.

-  Seamen’s Articles of Agreement Convention, 1926 (No. 22). In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government, among other matters, to indicate the measures taken to ensure that seafarers understand the clauses of their agreement, in accordance with Article 3, paragraph 4, of the Convention. The Government states in its report that the fact of signing the agreement indicates an understanding of it. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether measures other than the written form of the agreement are taken to ensure that seafarers understand the meaning of the clauses of the agreement, such as the provision of legal assistance or the establishment of a period of reflection for the acceptance of the agreement.

In its previous direct request, the Committee noted the Government’s intention to supply as soon as possible information on the points raised under this Convention. However, it notes that the Government’s report does not provide all the information requested and is therefore bound to reiterate the questions raised, which read as follows: please indicate (i) whether agreements have to include reference to the possible grounds for rescission and annual leave (Article 6, paragraph 3(10)(c) and (11)); (ii) the provisions relating to termination (Articles 9 and 10) and immediate discharge (Articles 12 and 13).

Article 14. The Committee notes that seafarers are issued with a certificate of discharge, under the terms of section 10311 of Title 46 of the United States Code, and as required by Article 14, paragraph 1, of the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether the seafarer at all times has the right to obtain from the master a separate certificate as to the quality of his work or, failing that, a certificate indicating whether he has fully discharged his obligations under the agreement (Article 14, paragraph 2).

-  Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). The Committee notes the judicial decisions provided by the Government and requests it to continue providing the Office with any relevant judicial decisions relating to the field covered by these Conventions.

Article 3 of Convention No. 87. While noting the indications contained in the Government’s report that, firstly, all private sector workers enjoy the full range of trade union rights and, secondly, the maritime industry in the United States is almost completely unionized, the Committee nevertheless notes that the report does not indicate the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to render the Labour Management Report and Disclosure Act of 1959 (section 504) substantially equivalent to Convention No. 87. In these circumstances, it is bound to reiterate its previous comments, in which it noted that this provision excludes any person who is or has been a member of the Communist Party from holding office in a labour organization and from serving as a consultant or adviser. It once again refers the Government to the interpretation contained in its General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining (paragraph 119), where it considered that "legislation which prohibits the exercise of trade union functions solely on the grounds of political belief or affiliation is not compatible with the right of organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom". It once again recalls that, for the purposes of Convention No. 147, substantial equivalence with Convention No. 87 involves at the minimum the observance and implementation in full of the right (among other guarantees) to elect representatives in full freedom, in respect of seafarers on United States registered ships (see the 1990 General Survey, paragraph 188). The Committee therefore firmly hopes that the next report will contain information on the measures which have been taken or are envisaged in this respect.

Article 2(b). The Committee notes the establishment within the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety. The Government is requested to provide information on the role of the above Committee as it relates to this provision of the Convention.

Article 2(d)(i) and (ii). The Committee notes that the Coast Guard has ceased performing the duties of the Shipping Commissioner, and that these duties are now performed by the master of the vessel, using guidance provided by the Coast Guard. However, the Committee notes the absence of the general supervisory system that the Government had undertaken to establish under this Article of the Convention. It therefore once again refers the Government to the explanations contained in Chapter IV of the General Survey (especially paragraphs 214 and 218) and considers that the supervisory role in engagement procedures and the investigation of complaints relating to engagement as required by the Convention must be discharged by a disinterested party in the context of adequate procedures established after consultation with the organizations of shipowners and seafarers, where appropriate. The Committee recalls that, by ratifying the Convention, each Member undertakes to ensure that such procedures exist and are subject to the overall supervision of the competent authority.

The Committee also notes that the parties may, if disputes are not settled amicably in accordance with collective agreements, refer them to the courts for resolution. It further notes the possibility of filing complaints with the Coast Guard, in which case the latter is competent to investigate to determine whether any violations of laws or regulations have occurred. The Government is requested to provide detailed information on the engagement procedures for seafarers on vessels registered on its territory and for the investigation of complaints lodged in this respect, and particularly to indicate: (i) the competence of the Coast Guard with regard to the engagement of seafarers and the filing of complaints; (ii) the competent authority entrusted with the overall supervision of procedures for the engagement of seafarers on vessels registered on its territory and the investigation of complaints arising in this connection; and (iii) whether tripartite consultations were held concerning the elaboration of procedures for the engagement of seafarers and the investigation of complaints arising in this connection.

The Government is also requested to indicate whether the rules respecting the investigation of complaints arising in connection with engagement are also applicable to complaints lodged by seafarers of its own nationality engaged on vessels registered in a foreign country and mooring in American ports, and whether the same procedures are applicable to seafarers of foreign nationality engaged on vessels registered in a foreign country (Article 2(d)(ii)). In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted to ensure the prompt transmission of complaints arising in connection with the engagement of foreign seafarers on ships registered in a foreign country to the competent authority of the country, in accordance with this provision of the Convention.

Article 2(f). The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report concerning the frequency of inspections of vessels registered in the United States and carried out by the Coast Guard. It would be grateful if the Government would provide information in future reports, as it did in the report received in 1994, on the size of the inspection staff, the number and results of inspections and investigations of complaints, and the penalties imposed.

Article 4. The Committee notes the updating of Commandant Instruction No. 16711.12A on 12 July 1996 with the objective of providing clear guidance for the application of Convention No. 147. It notes with interest that, where the vessel that is inspected is registered in a State that has ratified the Convention, the nearest maritime, consular or diplomatic representative of the vessel’s flag State shall be notified of the intervention when the competent authorities intervene in situations which are clearly hazardous to safety and health under the terms of section 1223(b) of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act. In the case of vessels registered in a State that has not ratified Convention No. 147, the Committee notes that the captain of the port may take control action to rectify any conditions which are clearly hazardous to safety and health and which can reasonably be construed as imperilling the safety of the port. The Committee notes that, where such measures are taken, the Instruction does not provide, as required by the Convention (Article 4, paragraph 2), that the nearest maritime, consular or diplomatic representative of the flag State shall be notified forthwith. It requests the Government to indicate the measures that it intends to take in order to conform fully to the Convention on this point.

Part V of the report form. The Government is requested to indicate the representative organizations of employers and workers to which copies of the last report were communicated in accordance with article 23, paragraph 2, of the Constitution of the ILO.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's report, particularly the replies to its previous comments concerning the application of Article 1(4)(b) and (c) (exclusion of "ships engaged in fishing or in whaling or in similar pursuits" and "small vessels"), and Article 2(a)(i) (standards of competency and manning), (e) (seafarers' vocational training arrangements) and (g) (official inquiries into serious maritime casualties) of the Convention. The Committee also notes the Government's indication that it is in the process of reviewing the additional issues raised in its previous direct request and that it will supply in the near future a supplementary report responding to these matters. It hopes that the Government will soon conclude its review and supply a report with full information on the following points:

1. Article 2(a) (Conventions referred to in the Appendix to Convention No. 147, but not ratified by the United States).

-- Convention No. 134. The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's report on the application of Article 7 of the Convention. Please indicate whether any measures have been taken or proposed to ensure that there are laws or regulations for the appointment from among the crew of suitable persons or committees responsible, under the master, for accident prevention on board US-registered ships.

-- Convention No. 73, Articles 2, 3 and 5(1). The Government indicates in its report that US law, in most instances, requires medical examinations every five years and that, in any event, maritime companies and seafarers' organizations, such as the Seafarers International Union, have policies in practice requiring annual physical exams for employment. The Government also refers to the Guidelines for Physical Examination for both original entry and retention of seafarers in the US Merchant Marine (which do not specify the frequency of medical examinations). The Committee must reiterate that the discrepancy between the requirements as to the frequency of medical examinations for seafarers in the national laws (every five years) and in the Convention (every two years for all seafarers covered by the Convention) is too wide to be considered substantially equivalent for the purposes of Convention No. 147 (see 1990 General Survey, paragraph 115). The Committee hopes that the Government will consider the matter further with a view to ensuring that national laws or regulations are closer and thus substantially equivalent to the provisions of Convention No. 73, as required by Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147.

-- Convention No. 92. The Committee notes the Government's indication that it will supply as soon as possible, information on the points raised in the Committee's previous direct request under this Convention, which read as follows:

(i) Please indicate how the legislation on crew accommodation is brought to the notice of persons concerned (Article 3(2)(a)). (ii) Please indicate the provisions for adequate penalties in cases of violations of accommodation requirements; and describe how effective enforcement of accommodation requirements is ensured, including on re-registration or alteration or on receipt of a complaint (Articles 3(2)(c) and (d) and 5 -- see also Article 2(f) of Convention No. 147). (iii) Please indicate what consultations take place with shipowners' and seafarers' organizations (Articles 3(2)(e) and 18).

-- Convention No. 22. The Committee notes the Government's indication that it will supply, as soon as possible, information on the points raised in the Committee's previous direct request under this Convention, which read as follows:

(i) Please indicate how it is ensured that seafarers understand their agreements (Article 3, paragraph 4). (ii) Please indicate whether agreements have to include reference to the possible grounds for rescission and annual leave (Article 6, paragraph 3(10)(c) and paragraph (3)(11)). (iii) Please indicate the provisions relating to termination (Articles 9 and 10) and immediate discharge (Articles 12 and 13).

-- Convention No. 87, Article 3. The Committee notes that section 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 excludes any person who is or has been a member of the Communist Party from holding office in a labour organization and from serving as a consultant or advisor. As the Committee pointed out in its 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining (paragraph 119), "(l)egislation which prohibits the exercise of trade union functions solely on the grounds of political belief or affiliation is not compatible with the right of organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom". Moreover, for purposes of Convention No. 147, substantial equivalence to Convention No. 87 involves at the minimum the observance and implementation in full of the right (among other guarantees) to elect representatives in full freedom, in respect of seafarers on US-registered ships (see 1990 General Survey, paragraph 188). The Committee hopes the next report will include information on any steps taken or proposed on this matter. It also would be grateful if the Government would supply copies of important judicial decisions and decisions of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) concerning freedom of association and protection of the right to organize in relation to seafarers on US-registered ships.

-- Convention No. 98. Please provide copies of important judicial decisions or decisions of the NLRB as to how seafarers are protected against acts of anti-union discrimination.

2. Article 2(d). The Committee notes the Government's indication that it will supply, as soon as possible, information on the points raised in the Committee's previous direct request concerning the application of this Article, which read as follows:

The Committee notes the statement in the report that it is masters of vessels who are responsible for supervising engagement; reference is also made to the general role of the NLRB in cases of grievance, and to tripartite advisory committees assisting in the application of shipping law in general. It would refer the Government to the explanations in Chapter IV of the 1990 General Survey (especially paragraphs 214 and 218) as to the requirements of the Convention.

It appears to the Committee that the supervisory role in engagement procedures attributed by the Convention to a competent authority must, in order to ensure the seafarer's protection, be discharged by a disinterested party. In this respect, it has noted that the legislation (e.g., 46 USC section 10305) refers also to the role of the shipping commissioner. It appears to the Committee that adequate procedures in terms of the Convention must be designed, in addition, to deal immediately with complaints arising in connection with an engagement. Further, where tripartite consultations are appropriate under Article 2(d), they should directly address the issue of procedures for engagement and related complaints.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would (i) describe the role of the shipping commissioner in relation to engagement procedures; (ii) supply particulars of typical cases where complaints concerning engagement have been investigated; and (iii) indicate any tripartite consultations which have taken place specifically relating to engagement procedures. Please indicate whether the arrangements referred to cover the investigation of complaints made by US seafarers as to engagement on foreign ships in US ports; or by foreign seafarers as to engagement on such ships.

3. Article 2(f). The Committee notes the information provided as to inspection. It also notes the Government's indication that it will provide additional information in its supplementary report, on the frequency of inspections of US-registered ships conducted by the US Coast Guard. It would be grateful if the Government would supply this data and continue to provide information on the functioning of inspection of labour standards on board ship.

4. Article 3. The Committee notes the Government's indication that the Coast Guard compiles information on substandard ships and that it will provide such data in its supplementary report. Please also indicate whether any specific measures have been adopted or planned to advise US nationals of the possible problems of signing on a ship registered in a State which has not ratified the Convention.

5. Article 4. The Committee notes the Government's indication that it will supply in its supplementary report information on the Coast Guard's programme on the boarding and inspection of foreign vessels as well as on the steps intended to be taken by the Government to develop, in cooperation with the Labour Department, procedures for handling matters that lie outside the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard. Please also indicate whether any other measures have been adopted or proposed as to port state control of foreign vessels.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's report, particularly the replies to its previous comments concerning the application of Article 1(4)(b) and (c) (exclusion of "ships engaged in fishing or in whaling or in similar pursuits" and "small vessels"), and Article 2(a)(i) (standards of competency and manning), (e) (seafarers' vocational training arrangements) and (g) (official inquiries into serious maritime casualties) of the Convention. The Committee also notes the Government's indication that it is in the process of reviewing the additional issues raised in its previous direct request and that it will supply in the near future a supplementary report responding to these matters. It hopes that the Government will soon conclude its review and supply a report with full information on the following points:

1. Article 2(a) (Conventions referred to in the Appendix to Convention No. 147, but not ratified by the United States).

- Convention No. 134. The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's report on the application of Article 7 of the Convention. Please indicate whether any measures have been taken or proposed to ensure that there are laws or regulations for the appointment from among the crew of suitable persons or committees responsible, under the master, for accident prevention on board US-registered ships.

- Convention No. 73, Articles 2, 3 and 5(1). The Government indicates in its report that US law, in most instances, requires medical examinations every five years and that, in any event, maritime companies and seafarers' organizations, such as the Seafarers International Union, have policies in practice requiring annual physical exams for employment. The Government also refers to the Guidelines for Physical Examination for both original entry and retention of seafarers in the US Merchant Marine (which do not specify the frequency of medical examinations). The Committee must reiterate that the discrepancy between the requirements as to the frequency of medical examinations for seafarers in the national laws (every five years) and in the Convention (every two years for all seafarers covered by the Convention) is too wide to be considered substantially equivalent for the purposes of Convention No. 147 (see 1990 General Survey, paragraph 115). The Committee hopes that the Government will consider the matter further with a view to ensuring that national laws or regulations are closer and thus substantially equivalent to the provisions of Convention No. 73, as required by Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147.

- Convention No. 92. The Committee notes the Government's indication that it will supply as soon as possible, information on the points raised in the Committee's previous direct request under this Convention, which read as follows:

(i) Please indicate how the legislation on crew accommodation is brought to the notice of persons concerned (Article 3(2)(a)). (ii) Please indicate the provisions for adequate penalties in cases of violations of accommodation requirements; and describe how effective enforcement of accommodation requirements is ensured, including on re-registration or alteration or on receipt of a complaint (Articles 3(2)(c) and (d) and 5 - see also Article 2(f) of Convention No. 147). (iii) Please indicate what consultations take place with shipowners' and seafarers' organizations (Articles 3(2)(e) and 18).

- Convention No. 22. The Committee notes the Government's indication that it will supply, as soon as possible, information on the points raised in the Committee's previous direct request under this Convention, which read as follows:

(i) Please indicate how it is ensured that seafarers understand their agreements (Article 3, paragraph 4). (ii) Please indicate whether agreements have to include reference to the possible grounds for rescission and annual leave (Article 6, paragraph 3(10)(c) and paragraph (3)(11)). (iii) Please indicate the provisions relating to termination (Articles 9 and 10) and immediate discharge (Articles 12 and 13).

- Convention No. 87, Article 3. The Committee notes that section 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 excludes any person who is or has been a member of the Communist Party from holding office in a labour organization and from serving as a consultant or advisor. As the Committee pointed out in its 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining (paragraph 119), "(l)egislation which prohibits the exercise of trade union functions solely on the grounds of political belief or affiliation is not compatible with the right of organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom". Moreover, for purposes of Convention No. 147, substantial equivalence to Convention No. 87 involves at the minimum the observance and implementation in full of the right (among other guarantees) to elect representatives in full freedom, in respect of seafarers on US-registered ships (see 1990 General Survey, paragraph 188). The Committee hopes the next report will include information on any steps taken or proposed on this matter. It also would be grateful if the Government would supply copies of important judicial decisions and decisions of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) concerning freedom of association and protection of the right to organize in relation to seafarers on US-registered ships.

- Convention No. 98. Please provide copies of important judicial decisions or decisions of the NLRB as to how seafarers are protected against acts of anti-union discrimination.

2. Article 2(d). The Committee notes the Government's indication that it will supply, as soon as possible, information on the points raised in the Committee's previous direct request concerning the application of this Article, which read as follows:

The Committee notes the statement in the report that it is masters of vessels who are responsible for supervising engagement; reference is also made to the general role of the NLRB in cases of grievance, and to tripartite advisory committees assisting in the application of shipping law in general. It would refer the Government to the explanations in Chapter IV of the 1990 General Survey (especially paragraphs 214 and 218) as to the requirements of the Convention.

It appears to the Committee that the supervisory role in engagement procedures attributed by the Convention to a competent authority must, in order to ensure the seafarer's protection, be discharged by a disinterested party. In this respect, it has noted that the legislation (e.g., 46 USC section 10305) refers also to the role of the shipping commissioner. It appears to the Committee that adequate procedures in terms of the Convention must be designed, in addition, to deal immediately with complaints arising in connection with an engagement. Further, where tripartite consultations are appropriate under Article 2(d), they should directly address the issue of procedures for engagement and related complaints.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would (i) describe the role of the shipping commissioner in relation to engagement procedures; (ii) supply particulars of typical cases where complaints concerning engagement have been investigated; and (iii) indicate any tripartite consultations which have taken place specifically relating to engagement procedures. Please indicate whether the arrangements referred to cover the investigation of complaints made by US seafarers as to engagement on foreign ships in US ports; or by foreign seafarers as to engagement on such ships.

3. Article 2(f). The Committee notes the information provided as to inspection. It also notes the Government's indication that it will provide additional information in its supplementary report, on the frequency of inspections of US-registered ships conducted by the US Coast Guard. It would be grateful if the Government would supply this data and continue to provide information on the functioning of inspection of labour standards on board ship.

4. Article 3. The Committee notes the Government's indication that the Coast Guard compiles information on substandard ships and that it will provide such data in its supplementary report. Please also indicate whether any specific measures have been adopted or planned to advise US nationals of the possible problems of signing on a ship registered in a State which has not ratified the Convention.

5. Article 4. The Committee notes the Government's indication that it will supply in its supplementary report information on the Coast Guard's programme on the boarding and inspection of foreign vessels as well as on the steps intended to be taken by the Government to develop, in cooperation with the Labour Department, procedures for handling matters that lie outside the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard. Please also indicate whether any other measures have been adopted or proposed as to port state control of foreign vessels.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's report, particularly the replies to its previous comments concerning the application of Article 1(4)(b) and (c) (exclusion of "ships engaged in fishing or in whaling or in similar pursuits" and "small vessels"), and Article 2(a)(i) (standards of competency and manning), (e) (seafarers' vocational training arrangements) and (g) (official inquiries into serious maritime casualties) of the Convention. The Committee also notes the Government's indication that it is in the process of reviewing the additional issues raised in its previous direct request and that it will supply in the near future a supplementary report responding to these matters. It hopes that the Government will soon conclude its review and supply a report with full information on the following points:

1. Article 2(a) (Conventions referred to in the Appendix to Convention No. 147, but not ratified by the United States).

- Convention No. 134. The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's report on the application of Article 7 of the Convention. Please indicate whether any measures have been taken or proposed to ensure that there are laws or regulations for the appointment from among the crew of suitable persons or committees responsible, under the master, for accident prevention on board US-registered ships.

- Convention No. 73, Articles 2, 3 and 5(1). The Government indicates in its report that US law, in most instances, requires medical examinations every five years and that, in any event, maritime companies and seafarers' organizations, such as the Seafarers International Union, have policies in practice requiring annual physical exams for employment. The Government also refers to the Guidelines for Physical Examination for both original entry and retention of seafarers in the US Merchant Marine (which do not specify the frequency of medical examinations). The Committee must reiterate that the discrepancy between the requirements as to the frequency of medical examinations for seafarers in the national laws (every five years) and in the Convention (every two years for all seafarers covered by the Convention) is too wide to be considered substantially equivalent for the purposes of Convention No. 147 (see 1990 General Survey, paragraph 115). The Committee hopes that the Government will consider the matter further with a view to ensuring that national laws or regulations are closer and thus substantially equivalent to the provisions of Convention No. 73, as required by Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147.

- Convention No. 92. The Committee notes the Government's indication that it will supply as soon as possible, information on the points raised in the Committee's previous direct request under this Convention, which read as follows:

(i) Please indicate how the legislation on crew accommodation is brought to the notice of persons concerned (Article 3(2)(a)). (ii) Please indicate the provisions for adequate penalties in cases of violations of accommodation requirements; and describe how effective enforcement of accommodation requirements is ensured, including on re-registration or alteration or on receipt of a complaint (Articles 3(2)(c) and (d) and 5 - see also Article 2(f) of Convention No. 147). (iii) Please indicate what consultations take place with shipowners' and seafarers' organizations (Articles 3(2)(e) and 18).

- Convention No. 22. The Committee notes the Government's indication that it will supply, as soon as possible, information on the points raised in the Committee's previous direct request under this Convention, which read as follows:

(i) Please indicate how it is ensured that seafarers understand their agreements (Article 3, paragraph 4). (ii) Please indicate whether agreements have to include reference to the possible grounds for rescission and annual leave (Article 6, paragraph 3(10)(c) and paragraph (3)(11)). (iii) Please indicate the provisions relating to termination (Articles 9 and 10) and immediate discharge (Articles 12 and 13).

- Convention No. 87, Article 3. The Committee notes that section 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 excludes any person who is or has been a member of the Communist Party from holding office in a labour organization and from serving as a consultant or advisor. As the Committee pointed out in its 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining (paragraph 119), "(l)egislation which prohibits the exercise of trade union functions solely on the grounds of political belief or affiliation is not compatible with the right of organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom". Moreover, for purposes of Convention No. 147, substantial equivalence to Convention No. 87 involves at the minimum the observance and implementation in full of the right (among other guarantees) to elect representatives in full freedom, in respect of seafarers on US-registered ships (see 1990 General Survey, paragraph 188). The Committee hopes the next report will include information on any steps taken or proposed on this matter. It also would be grateful if the Government would supply copies of important judicial decisions and decisions of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) concerning freedom of association and protection of the right to organize in relation to seafarers on US-registered ships.

- Convention No. 98. Please provide copies of important judicial decisions or decisions of the NLRB as to how seafarers are protected against acts of anti-union discrimination.

2. Article 2(d). The Committee notes the Government's indication that it will supply, as soon as possible, information on the points raised in the Committee's previous direct request concerning the application of this Article, which read as follows:

The Committee notes the statement in the report that it is masters of vessels who are responsible for supervising engagement; reference is also made to the general role of the NLRB in cases of grievance, and to tripartite advisory committees assisting in the application of shipping law in general. It would refer the Government to the explanations in Chapter IV of the 1990 General Survey (especially paragraphs 214 and 218) as to the requirements of the Convention.

It appears to the Committee that the supervisory role in engagement procedures attributed by the Convention to a competent authority must, in order to ensure the seafarer's protection, be discharged by a disinterested party. In this respect, it has noted that the legislation (e.g., 46 USC section 10305) refers also to the role of the shipping commissioner. It appears to the Committee that adequate procedures in terms of the Convention must be designed, in addition, to deal immediately with complaints arising in connection with an engagement. Further, where tripartite consultations are appropriate under Article 2(d), they should directly address the issue of procedures for engagement and related complaints.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would (i) describe the role of the shipping commissioner in relation to engagement procedures; (ii) supply particulars of typical cases where complaints concerning engagement have been investigated; and (iii) indicate any tripartite consultations which have taken place specifically relating to engagement procedures. Please indicate whether the arrangements referred to cover the investigation of complaints made by US seafarers as to engagement on foreign ships in US ports; or by foreign seafarers as to engagement on such ships.

3. Article 2(f). The Committee notes the information provided as to inspection. It also notes the Government's indication that it will provide additional information in its supplementary report, on the frequency of inspections of US-registered ships conducted by the US Coast Guard. It would be grateful if the Government would supply this data and continue to provide information on the functioning of inspection of labour standards on board ship.

4. Article 3. The Committee notes the Government's indication that the Coast Guard compiles information on substandard ships and that it will provide such data in its supplementary report. Please also indicate whether any specific measures have been adopted or planned to advise US nationals of the possible problems of signing on a ship registered in a State which has not ratified the Convention.

5. Article 4. The Committee notes the Government's indication that it will supply in its supplementary report information on the Coast Guard's programme on the boarding and inspection of foreign vessels as well as on the steps intended to be taken by the Government to develop, in cooperation with the Labour Department, procedures for handling matters that lie outside the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard. Please also indicate whether any other measures have been adopted or proposed as to port state control of foreign vessels.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1996.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee would be grateful if in its next report the Government would deal in particular with the matters referred to below. It would be glad also if in doing so the Government would indicate (a) how far any of the matters referred to in the Convention may be covered by provisions at the level of the States as well as at the federal level; and (b) whether any distinction is made in respect of seafarers who are not United States nationals or are not domiciled or resident in the United States.

Article 1(4)(b) and (c) of the Convention. 1. The Committee notes that fish processing vessels of up to 5,000 tons are not covered by provisions applying the Convention. It refers to the explanations in paragraph 42 of its 1990 general survey, from which it is clear that the exception under Article 1(4)(b) relates only to vessels engaged in catching operations involving the living resources of the sea. In the light also of the indications in paragraphs 43-45 of the general survey as to the limitations on the exclusion of "small vessels" under Article 1(4)(c), the Committee would be glad if the Government would indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure the implementation of the Convention in this respect.

2. Please indicate what consultations with representative organisations of shipowners and seafarers have taken place with regard to decisions to exclude from application of the Convention small vessels and vessels such as oil rigs and drilling platforms when not engaged in navigation.

Article 2. 1. Standards of competency and manning. The Committee has noted the indications in the report that licences are subject to suspension or revocation for failure to comply with the laws and regulations; and that measures designed to improve safety standards relating to manning were taken in particular as a result of the EXXON VALDEZ disaster. Please indicate more precisely the measures taken and the steps by which it has subsequently been ensured that the laws and regulations are complied with (see also Article 2(f)).

2. (Conventions included in the Appendix to Convention No. 147 but not ratified by the United States.)

- Convention No. l34. Please indicate the steps taken in relation to Article 7 (appointment of persons responsible for accident prevention).

- Convention No. 73. (i) Please indicate the provisions by which it is ensured that all persons engaged on board in terms of Article 2 are covered by the medical examination requirement under Article 3. (ii) Please also indicate whether all persons covered are required to undergo examinations every 12 months, or whether this only applies to officers; and how far it is ensured that medical certificates comply with the provisions of Article 5(1) as to their frequency.

- Convention No. 92. (i) Please indicate how the legislation on crew accommodation is brought to the notice of persons concerned (Article 3(2)(a)). (ii) Please indicate the provisions for adequate penalties in cases of violations of accommodation requirements; and describe how effective enforcement of accommodation requirements is ensured, including on re-registration or alteration or on receipt of a complaint (Articles 3(2)(c) and (d) and 5 - see also Article 2(f) of Convention No. 147). (iii) Please indicate what consultations take place with shipowners' and seafarers' organisations under Articles 3(2)(e) and 18.

- Convention No. 23. Please indicate whether seafarers who are repatriated as members of a crew are remunerated (Article 5(2)).

- Convention No. 22. (i) Please indicate how it is ensured that seafarers understand their agreements (Article 3(4)). (ii) Please indicate whether agreements have to include reference to the possible grounds for rescission and annual leave (Article 6(3)(10)(c) and (3)(11)). (iii) Please indicate the provisions relating to termination (Articles 9 and 10) and immediate discharge (Articles 12 and 13).

- Convention No. 87. Whilst the Committee has noted the general information provided, it would be glad if, in order to facilitate an appreciation of the extent to which effect is given to the Convention in the maritime industry, the Government would supply information on important judicial decisions and decisions of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and on the practice in relation to seafarers on US-registered ships. In particular: (i) Article 2. Please indicate any substantive or formal conditions for the establishment of seafarers' organisations. (ii) Article 3. Please indicate any conditions governing the right of seafarers' organisations to draw up their constitutions and rules, elect their representatives in full freedom, organise their administration and activities and formulate their programmes. Please indicate any election or membership criteria based on nationality, domicile, residence or prior service at sea. (iii) Article 4. Please indicate any provisions whereby seafarers' organisations might be liable to dissolution or suspension by administrative authority. (iv) Articles 5 and 6. Please indicate any provisions as to federations and confederations to which seafarers' organisations may affiliate.

- Convention No. 98. (i) Article 1. Please provide further information, including on important judicial decisions or decisions of the NLRB, as to how seafarers are protected against acts of anti-union discrimination. (ii) Article 2. How is protection against mutual acts of interference by seafarers' and shipowners' organisations ensured? (iii) Article 4. Please indicate what measures are taken to promote collective bargaining in the maritime industry.

Article 2(d). The Committee notes the statement in the report that it is masters of vessels who are responsible for supervising engagement; reference is also made to the general role of the NLRB in cases of grievance, and to tripartite advisory committees assisting in the application of shipping law in general. It would refer the Government to the explanations in Chapter IV of the 1990 general survey (especially paragraphs 214 and 218) as to the requirements of the Convention.

It appears to the Committee that the supervisory role in engagement procedures attributed by the Convention to a competent authority must, in order to ensure the seafarer's protection, be discharged by a disinterested party. In this respect, it has noted that the legislation (e.g. 46 USC section 10305) refers also to the role of the shipping commissioner. It appears to the Committee that adequate procedures in terms of the Convention must be designed in addition to deal immediately with complaints arising in connection with an engagement. Further, where tripartite consultations are appropriate under Article 2(d), they should directly address the issue of procedures for engagement and related complaints.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would (i) describe the role of the shipping commissioner in relation to engagement procedures; (ii) supply particulars of typical cases where complaints concerning engagement have been investigated; and (iii) indicate any tripartite consultations which have taken place specifically relating to engagement procedures. Please indicate whether the arrangements referred to cover the investigation of complaints made by US seafarers as to engagement on foreign ships in US ports; or by foreign seafarers as to engagement on such ships.

Article 2(e). Please include in future reports information on the practical application of seafarers' vocational training arrangements, having regard to Recommendation No. 137.

Article 2(f). The Committee has noted the brief information in the report as to marine inspections in general, although this does not appear to relate specifically to the matters covered by the Convention. It has also noted US Coast Guard Commandant Instruction No. 16711.12, which deals more directly with the labour standards in question. The Instruction indicates that certain matters are investigated by the Coast Guard, whilst others are referred to the Department of Labor. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would in both cases supply the information requested in the report form as to the functioning of inspection and other arrangements for verification of the matters referred to in Article 2(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) (e.g. the size of the inspection staff, numbers and results of inspections and investigations of complaints, penalties imposed).

Article 2(g). Please include in future reports up-to-date information on inquiries into serious marine casualties, whether made by the National Transportation Safety Board or the Coast Guard or any other body, and measures taken as a result of them.

Article 3. Please include in the next report information on the practical application by the federal agencies referred to in the report of measures to inform US nationals of the risks of signing on for employment on foreign-registered vessels.

Article 4. The Committee has noted the general information in the report as to measures of port state control of foreign vessels. It would be glad if in the next report the Government would indicate the steps taken under the Coast Guard Instruction specifically in relation to the standards of the present Convention, indicating, for example, the number and the nature of cases considered and any action taken. Please ensure that a copy of any report prepared under Article 4(1) is forwarded to the ILO.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee has noted the information provided by the Government in its first report and in its earlier report under article 19 of the Constitution concerning Recommendation No. 155. It would be grateful if in its next report the Government would deal in particular with the matters referred to below. It would be glad also if in doing so the Government would indicate (a) how far any of the matters referred to in the Convention may be covered by provisions at the level of the States as well as at the federal level; and (b) whether any distinction is made in respect of seafarers who are not United States nationals or are not domiciled or resident in the United States.

Article 1(4)(b) and (c) of the Convention. 1. The Committee notes that fish processing vessels of up to 5,000 tons are not covered by provisions applying the Convention. It refers to the explanations in paragraph 42 of its 1990 general survey, from which it is clear that the exception under Article 1(4)(b) relates only to vessels engaged in catching operations involving the living resources of the sea. In the light also of the indications in paragraphs 43-45 of the general survey as to the limitations on the exclusion of "small vessels" under Article 1(4)(c), the Committee would be glad if the Government would indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure the implementation of the Convention in this respect.

2. Please indicate what consultations with representative organisations of shipowners and seafarers have taken place with regard to decisions to exclude from application of the Convention small vessels and vessels such as oil rigs and drilling platforms when not engaged in navigation.

Article 2. 1. Standards of competency and manning. The Committee has noted the indications in the report that licences are subject to suspension or revocation for failure to comply with the laws and regulations; and that measures designed to improve safety standards relating to manning were taken in particular as a result of the EXXON VALDEZ disaster. Please indicate more precisely the measures taken and the steps by which it has subsequently been ensured that the laws and regulations are complied with (see also Article 2(f)).

2. (Conventions included in the Appendix to Convention No. 147 but not ratified by the United States).

- Convention No. l34. Please indicate the steps taken in relation to Article 7 (appointment of persons responsible for accident prevention).

- Convention No. 73. (i) Please indicate the provisions by which it is ensured that all persons engaged on board in terms of Article 2 are covered by the medical examination requirement under Article 3. (ii) Please also indicate whether all persons covered are required to undergo examinations every 12 months, or whether this only applies to officers; and how far it is ensured that medical certificates comply with the provisions of Article 5(1) as to their frequency.

- Convention No. 92. (i) Please indicate how the legislation on crew accommodation is brought to the notice of persons concerned (Article 3(2)(a)). (ii) Please indicate the provisions for adequate penalties in cases of violations of accommodation requirements; and describe how effective enforcement of accommodation requirements is ensured, including on re-registration or alteration or on receipt of a complaint (Articles 3(2)(c) and (d) and 5 - see also Article 2(f) of Convention No. 147). (iii) Please indicate what consultations take place with shipowners' and seafarers' organisations under Articles 3(2)(e) and 18.

- Convention No. 23. Please indicate whether seafarers who are repatriated as members of a crew are remunerated (Article 5(2)).

- Convention No. 22. (i) Please indicate how it is ensured that seafarers understand their agreements (Article 3(4)). (ii) Please indicate whether agreements have to include reference to the possible grounds for rescission and annual leave (Article 6(3)(10)(c) and (3)(11)). (iii) Please indicate the provisions relating to termination (Articles 9 and 10) and immediate discharge (Articles 12 and 13).

- Convention No. 87. Whilst the Committee has noted the general information provided, it would be glad if, in order to facilitate an appreciation of the extent to which effect is given to the Convention in the maritime industry, the Government would supply information on important judicial decisions and decisions of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and on the practice in relation to seafarers on US-registered ships. In particular: (i) Article 2. Please indicate any substantive or formal conditions for the establishment of seafarers' organisations. (ii) Article 3. Please indicate any conditions governing the right of seafarers' organisations to draw up their constitutions and rules, elect their representatives in full freedom, organise their administration and activities and formulate their programmes. Please indicate any election or membership criteria based on nationality, domicile, residence or prior service at sea. (iii) Article 4. Please indicate any provisions whereby seafarers' organisations might be liable to dissolution or suspension by administrative authority. (iv) Articles 5 and 6. Please indicate any provisions as to federations and confederations to which seafarers' organisations may affiliate.

- Convention No. 98. (i) Article 1. Please provide further information, including on important judicial decisions or decisions of the NLRB, as to how seafarers are protected against acts of anti-union discrimination. (ii) Article 2. How is protection against mutual acts of interference by seafarers' and shipowners' organisations ensured? (iii) Article 4. Please indicate what measures are taken to promote collective bargaining in the maritime industry.

Article 2(d). The Committee notes the statement in the report that it is masters of vessels who are responsible for supervising engagement; reference is also made to the general role of the NLRB in cases of grievance, and to tripartite advisory committees assisting in the application of shipping law in general. It would refer the Government to the explanations in Chapter IV of the 1990 general survey (especially paragraphs 214 and 218) as to the requirements of the Convention.

It appears to the Committee that the supervisory role in engagement procedures attributed by the Convention to a competent authority must, in order to ensure the seafarer's protection, be discharged by a disinterested party. In this respect, it has noted that the legislation (e.g. 46 USC section 10305) refers also to the role of the shipping commissioner. It appears to the Committee that adequate procedures in terms of the Convention must be designed in addition to deal immediately with complaints arising in connection with an engagement. Further, where tripartite consultations are appropriate under Article 2(d), they should directly address the issue of procedures for engagement and related complaints.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would (i) describe the role of the shipping commissioner in relation to engagement procedures; (ii) supply particulars of typical cases where complaints concerning engagement have been investigated; and (iii) indicate any tripartite consultations which have taken place specifically relating to engagement procedures. Please indicate whether the arrangements referred to cover the investigation of complaints made by US seafarers as to engagement on foreign ships in US ports; or by foreign seafarers as to engagement on such ships.

Article 2(e). Please include in future reports information on the practical application of seafarers' vocational training arrangements, having regard to Recommendation No. 137.

Article 2(f). The Committee has noted the brief information in the report as to marine inspections in general, although this does not appear to relate specifically to the matters covered by the Convention. It has also noted US Coast Guard Commandant Instruction No. 16711.12, which deals more directly with the labour standards in question. The Instruction indicates that certain matters are investigated by the Coast Guard, whilst others are referred to the Department of Labor. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would in both cases supply the information requested in the report form as to the functioning of inspection and other arrangements for verification of the matters referred to in Article 2(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) (e.g. the size of the inspection staff, numbers and results of inspections and investigations of complaints, penalties imposed).

Article 2(g). Please include in future reports up-to-date information on inquiries into serious marine casualties, whether made by the National Transportation Safety Board or the Coast Guard or any other body, and measures taken as a result of them.

Article 3. Please include in the next report information on the practical application by the federal agencies referred to in the report of measures to inform US nationals of the risks of signing on for employment on foreign-registered vessels.

Article 4. The Committee has noted the general information in the report as to measures of port state control of foreign vessels. It would be glad if in the next report the Government would indicate the steps taken under the Coast Guard Instruction specifically in relation to the standards of the present Convention, indicating, for example, the number and the nature of cases considered and any action taken. Please ensure that a copy of any report prepared under Article 4(1) is forwarded to the ILO.